Skip to main content

Table 1 Surface modification of dental implants with BMPs

From: Dental implant bioactive surface modifications and their effects on osseointegration: a review

Author Animal – bone site Mode of surface modification Length of study Findings
Becker et al. [24] Dog – mandible and tibia 1. C: sand-blasted and acid-etched
2. CSA
3. BMP-A: non-covalently immobilized rhBMP-2 (596 ng/cm2)
4. BMP-B: covalently immobilized rhBMP-2 (819 ng/cm2)
4 weeks BIC and BD: BMP-B > BMP-A > CSA > C
Lan et al. [25] Rabbit - femur 1. A: with rhBMP-2
2. B: without rhBMP-2
12 weeks - Pull-out strength: A (36.5 N) > B (27.6 N)
- Bone formation: A > B
Liu et al. [26] Pig – maxilla 1. Ti + CaP + BMP-2 inc
2. Ti + CaP + BMP-2 ads
3. Ti + CaP + BMP-2 ads + inc
4. Ti + CaP
5. Ti + BMP-2 ads
6. Ti
3 weeks - Bone volume was highest for Ti & CaP and lowest for CaP/BMP-2 ads
- Bone-interface coverage of the implant surface was highest for CaP and lowest for Ti/BMP-2 ads
Wikesjo et al. [27] Dog - mandible 1. TPO + rhBMP-2 (0.2 mg/ml) ads
2. TPO + rhBMP-2 (4.0 mg/ml) ads
3. TPO (control)
8 weeks % of BIC:
- TPO surfaces coated with 0.2 mg/ml rhBMP-2: 43.3% vs. TPO control: 71.7%
- TPO surfaces coated with 4 mg/ml rhBMP-2: 35.4% vs. TPO control: 68.2%
Wikesjo et al. [28] Monkey - maxilla 1. TPO + rhBMP-2 (2.0 mg/ml) ads
2. TPO + rhBMP-2 (0.2 mg/ml) ads
3. TPO (control)
16 weeks % of BIC
- Uncoated TPO surfaces: 74 - 75%
- TPO surfaces coated with 2.0 mg/ml rhBMP-2: 43%
- TPO surfaces coated with 0.2 mg/ml rhBMP-2: 37%
Huh et al. [29] Dog - mandible 1. rhBMP-2 coated implants
2. uncoated anodized implants (control)
8 weeks % of BIC
- Uncoated control: 40.16%
- rhBMP-2 coated: 41.88%
Implant stability test
- Uncoated control: ISQ = 74.27
- rhBMP-2 coated: ISQ = 79.21
Hunziker et al. [30] Pig - maxilla 1. Ti
2. Ti + CaP
3. Ti + rhBMP-2 (10 μg) ads
4. Ti + CaP + rh BMP-2 (10 μg) ads
5. Ti + CaP + rh BMP-2 (12.95 μg) inc
6. Ti + CaP + rhBMP-2 ads + inc
1, 2, and 3 weeks Volume fraction of total bone
- Ti + CaP + BMP-2, with either ads or inc or both, have the highest values at 1 week
- Ti + CaP + BMP-2 inc and Cap groups have the highest values at 2 weeks
- Ti + CaP + BMP-2 inc and Cap groups have the highest values at 3 weeks
Kim et al. [31] Dog - mandible 1. SLA (control)
2. SLA + rhBMP-2 (0.1 mg/mL)
3. SLA + rhBMP-2 (0.5 mg/mL)
4. SLA + rhBMP-2 (1 mg/mL)
8 weeks % of BIC
- Control: Buccal: 0.67%; Lingual: 23.37%
- rhBMP-2 (0.1 mg/mL): Buccal: 10.24%; Lingual: 26.50%
- rhBMP-2 (0.5 mg/mL): Buccal: 24.47%; Lingual: 35.45%
- rhBMP-2 (1 mg/mL): Buccal: 18.42%; Lingual: 33.43%
BV
- Control: Buccal: 2.77%; Lingual: 46.50%
- rhBMP-2 (0.1 mg/mL): Buccal: 13.30%; Lingual: 60.50%
- rhBMP-2 (0.5 mg/mL): Buccal: 33.67%; Lingual: 66.17%
- rhBMP-2 (1 mg/mL): Buccal: 35.67%; Lingual: 65.00%
Implant stability test
- Control: ISQ = 60.17
- rhBMP-2 (0.1 mg/mL): ISQ = 64.83
- rhBMP-2 (0.5 mg/mL): ISQ = 71.67
- rhBMP-2 (1 mg/mL): ISQ = 72.00
  1. CSA chromosulfuric acid surface-enhanced; BIC bone to implant contact; BD bone density; Ti titanium; CaP calcium phosphate; BMP bone morphogenetic protein; inc incorporated; ads adsorbed; TPO titanium porous oxide; SLA sandblasted and acid-etched surface